pig

For what it's worth, I agree with this completely, with the caveat that evolution is an incomplete explanation as well at present. It does seem more consistent, based on what we think we know at present. It's also an explanation of "how," and descriptions of how, in my opinion can't approach a question of "why" in anything more than an indirect fashion.

I can't verify the second one either, although I think that Wilber had some sources. He argued from a starting point of the statistical calculation regarding randomly typing monkey producing Shakespearean work, pointed out that the monkeys would take something like 100 billion years, then pointed that DNA is much more complicated than Shakespeare, etc. I just thought it was interesting. I'm personally of the persuassion that everything has a deeper meaning than simple scientific explanation. The rules of science are there for our convenience; nature works just fine even if we don't understand it.



I guess that's another one for dogma versus spirituality.

Precisely. Or "spiritually enlightened" people thousands of years ago trying to describe their insights in terms that people would understand without personifying the "deity."

In any case, I personally don't understand the personification of God, and thus I don't fret too much over the interpretation of how many of God-years = 1 man-year. I take the whole thing as an anology; really as part of an anology which was pretty useful in providing some sort of structure to society for a while. I'll bet that if we're still around in a few thousand years, that all of our stuff now about the Big Bang and so forth will be encapsulated in some sort of new religion as well.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style